POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

After reading a number of articles and doing a little research, I've come to the conclusion that John McCain is NOT elegible to be POTUS.

US Constitution, Article II Section 1:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;"

The KEY word(s) being, "natural born".

The definition of "natural born" is not explicitly defined anywhere in the Constitution, but these words were specifically chosen to place a specific restriction on persons seeking the office of President. One does not need to be a "natural born" citizen to be a Senator or a Spreme Court Judge for example.

"7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the UnitedStates"(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)...c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship."

This speaks to the 14th amendment - what does that say??"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Some will attempt to argue the point that U.S. military bases are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the fourteenth amendment mentions that. The fourteenth amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The word "and" means "as well as" being born in the United States. Being born only under the jurisdiction of the United States, as some misguided military people would like to imagine, is not good enough. Some would like to believe that because the "United States" has a Status of Forces Agreement with a foreign government that military bases are somehow "sovereign" U.S. territory. If you murder a Panamanian citizen in Oregon you will be arrested by Oregon police, go through the Oregon courts and be imprisoned in Oregon, and now some other state maybe, but still within the U.S. If you murder a Panamanian citizen on a U.S. military base in Panama you will be arrested by Panamanian police, go through the Panamanian courts and be imprisoned in Panama. So much for "sovereignty."

At the top of the article it also states:

QUOTE

It's a common misunderstanding that the [Panama Canal] zone was a U.S. territory - in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not territorial rights.

This is sort of irrelevant, if you subscribe to the definition of "natural born" as being born within one of the (united) States, but it strengthens the argument that McCain is not elegible.

and stated that "Some might define the term "natural-born citizen" as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936."

However, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED, and replaced with the United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) which states, “…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:” Notice the words "natural-born" are removed from the statute. This Act as well was later repealed, leaving us with very little in the form of interpretation, but the words in the Constitution are still very clear.

Whether the Constitution will be followed or ignored is a different story.